BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.07.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR C.M.A(MD)No.643 of 2018 and C.M.P(MD)No.7484 of 2018 M/s.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, 45 and 46, Whites Road, Sundaram Towers, Chennai-14, Represented by its Divisional Manager. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent Vs.

1.V.Durgadevi

2.Ranjana Devi (Minor)

Represented by her mother and guardian V.Durgadevi.

3.K.Kanagaraj

4.K.Andiammal ... Respondents 1 to 4/Claimants 5.Dinakaran Aiyyalusamy ... 5th Respondent/1st Respondent (Cause title accepted vide Court order, dated 18.07.2018 made in C.M.P(MD)No.6231 of 2018 in C.M.A(MD)SR.No.20537 of 2018)

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 06.03.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.49 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Additional District Judge (Fast Track)

Theni and allow this appeal.

For Appellant : Mr.M.Jerin Mathew For Respondents : No appearance

JUDGMENT

The instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the liability and quantum fixed in M.C.O.P.No.49 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Theni.

2. According to the claimants, the deceased was riding a two-

wheeler from North to South direction. The car owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent came from East to West direction. In a junction, the car was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two-wheeler. Therefore, the rider of the two-wheeler sustained grievous injuries and later passed away. The claimants have further contended that, the deceased was a heavy vehicle driver and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month.

3. The Insurance Company of the car has filed a counter categorically contending that, the two-wheeler had suddenly crossed the East to West road from North to South direction without properly noticing the movement of the first respondent car at the time of the accident. Even though the driver of the first respondent car had applied the brake, the deceased had fell into the car. Therefore, the entire accident has taken place only due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the two-wheeler and therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation.

4. The Tribunal after considering the ocular evidence of P.W.2 has arrived at a specific finding that, the accident has taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the car. It also found fault with the Insurance Company for not producing the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report of both the vehicles. The Tribunal has fixed the notional monthly income at Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal has added 50% towards future prospects and has deducted 1/4^th towards personal expenses and applied a multiplier of 17 and awarded a sum of Rs.22,95,000/- under the head of loss of income. The Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the first claimant towards loss of consortium. Challenging the fixation of negligence on the part of the driver of the car and also the quantum, the present appeal has been filed.

5. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, the rider of the two-wheeler was coming from North to South direction, should have been careful while navigating a junction. Though the driver of the car has taken all precautions by applying brake, the rider of the two-wheeler had fallen into the car and he had succumbed to the injuries. He had further contended that, the Tribunal was not right in fixing 50% towards future prospects when the deceased was self-employed. He further pointed out that, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- cannot be awarded for four claimants at the rate of 50,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection. He prayed for setting aside the award of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of